This letter was published in the Financial Times today, and it quite simply destroys the economic and political arguments for Shale Gas being pushed by our political and media class.

It’s also notable that the letter isn’t from the green leftie, but the Senior Credit Executive at Norddeutsche Landesbank in London.

Here is the letter, via the FT

From Mr Tom Brown.

Sir, Your support for UK shale gas (“Make haste slowly on UK shale gas”, editorial, August 6) based upon “the reduction in energy prices and the improvement in energy security” is unjustified on both grounds. Even if the extraction, transmission and eventual environmental reinstatement costs were lower than those of Norwegian conventional gas, the end user, industrial or residential, will pay the same and the benefit of the presumed (but at this point unproved) higher operating margin for onshore shale gas extraction will accrue entirely to equity and debt investors in the extraction companies and to the exchequer through corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax.

The only way it could be cheaper would be if the government sought to penalise gas imports through higher duties, which would be illegal under EU and World Trade Organisation rules. As for energy security, it is absurd to imply that gas extracted from the Norwegian sector of the North Sea is less secure than from the UK sector, unless you expect FT readers to believe that Norway could be overthrown by a hostile regime.

Import substitution would, of course, benefit the balance of payments (BoP), but you do not mention this and there has been little (if any) economic analysis to suggest that the UK will run into an unmanageable BoP problem because of gas imports alone. Wider issues of competitiveness and whether the UK can continue to attract foreign direct investment if it suicidally exits the EU are far more likely to weigh on the external position over 20 years.

Above all, the pursuit of shale gas is wrong-headed because it distracts from the overriding public policy objective of de-carbonising the economy.

You report today (“A rising power”, Analysis, August 9) how the surge of efficient Chinese production of solar panels has led to an 80 per cent drop in the capital cost of solar photo-voltaic production and how Germany is already producing 22 per cent of its energy from renewable sources, manifestly without any noticeable impact on overall German competitiveness.

Consequently, the suspicion is that the UK government’s support of shale gas is a political sop to its climate-change-denying supporters – led by Lord Lawson – which, however, may yet backfire as it becomes clear that it risks industrialisation of the English countryside.

With a global glut of conventional gas, which has seen the value of Russia’s Gazprom slashed, the sensible course is to continue to work with our excellent Norwegian and Qatari friends to secure plentiful gas imports by pipeline and liquefied natural gas transportation.

What ‘tosh’! He makes no mention of the ‘value added’ economic impact, which in Pennsylvania alone has reached an estimated $11 Billion. And is expected to support around 1.5 million jobs nationwide by 2015. He fails to include that Natural gas is the world’s fastest-growing fuel for good reason: It is abundant, affordable, versatile, and emits up to 60 percent fewer carbon-dioxide emissions than coal when used for power generation. The shift toward gas as a fuel for the power-generation sector is helping slow global carbon-dioxide emissions. In the United States and other developed economies, emissions are actually falling. In fact, by 2040, ExxonMobil expects that U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions will be back to levels not seen since the 1970s. Also, The US has almost overnight become a net exporter of natural gas which has had a very significant bearing upon their BoP! Lets have some clarity and openess on both sides of this argument please!

No mention of the fact that Germany is building 20 coal fired power stations. Also missed, by accident I am sure, that China stands accused of dumping photo voltaic panels below cost price. That’s is another omission , that communities local to a producing wellhead will benefit financially. I really wonder if the banking gent lives near a proposed Fracking wellhead.

It may be irrelevant whether the drilling is for a traditional oilfield or for fracking. There’s enough money involved to sustain reports of corruption in the planning process. And it will not be low-carbon energy.

In the area where I live, I recall two seismic surveys and an exploratory well. None of that led to a production well. I reckon it’s more likely that you will find political corruption than oil or gas.

Someone smarter than me will have to explain why even if shale gas is cheaper to extract than Norwegian gas is to extract and transport it won’t mean cheaper gas.

I certainly don’t want to claim superior intelligence, but I can answer the question.

The UK (unlike the US, due to geography) is thoroughly linked into the Eurasian gas market. People buy and sell gas from many sources, and since it’s all interchangeable, it all trades for the same price (plus transport costs).

An increase in total supply from UK shale will decrease the price in this market a little. But the total expected from UK shale isn’t all that much, so this effect won’t be all that big. Those who project that global gas prices will fall due to shale coming online are assuming it’ll come online *throughout Europe and beyond* — whether the UK exploits it or not is not going to be a major factor.[1]

So, UK shale will be sold at the prevailing price. Why wouldn’t it be? Why would private companies, who’ve invested in setting up this infrastructure, sell it for less than the going rate? They won’t.

[1] See also p 23:

“Current data suggests that, even in the most optimistic scenario, shale gas might
at best compensate for the decrease in domestic production of conventional gas (see Figure ,
while imports will continue to meet a significant share of demand in the coming decades”

From Tom Brown’s letter: “… [1] and how Germany is already producing 22 per cent of its energy from renewable sources, [2] manifestly without any noticeable impact on overall German competitiveness.

Point 1 is questionable on two grounds.

Germany is a major importer of energy, so energy consumed by Germany needs to be distinguished from energy produced by Germany. I believe that the 22% ‘renewable energy’ reference is about energy consumed.

Brown also appears to have included nuclear power which German politicians do not intend to update as a ‘renewable source’.

@12.
"Shale Gas will be a major way to prevent increases."
Not with profit seeking companies trading at the same price per unit irrespective of source. The only way that there would be a marked difference would be if the UK became a net exporter of gas and that is not going to happen.

But to conclude, shale gas will take a long time to develop,no one knows how much there is,but what there is will, at best, have a marginal impact on the energy sector and potentially lock out investment into green technologies.
Add to that environmental disarray and possible water pollution.

@17. Bern Babibhurn: “Not with profit seeking companies trading at the same price per unit irrespective of source. The only way that there would be a marked difference would be if the UK became a net exporter of gas and that is not going to happen.”

My household is not a profit seeking company, but I, a consumer, desire to buy gas at the same price per unit irrespective of source. Consumers are traders.

Where are the loss seeking companies, or the just-ticking-over companies?

Shale gas will not make UK a net exporter of gas, but potentially reduces dependence on imports at times of crisis. I suppose it depends on whether the resource is pissed away.

Assuming that UK shale gas is used in the same way as North Sea gas, UK will be both an importer and exporter of gas. Or maybe gas markets will get a bit smarter, manage avoidable transmissions better, so that our gas is cheaper because the pipeline cost is lower.

@18. Man On Clapham Omnibus: “…shale gas will take a long time to develop,no one knows how much there is,but what there is will, at best, have a marginal impact on the energy sector…”

These are normal considerations for the majority of gas/oil developments.

“…and potentially lock out investment into green technologies.”

Investors use varying criteria to determine how they gamble their money. It should not be assumed that gas/oil and renewable energy investments are direct substitutes.

“Add to that environmental disarray and possible water pollution.”

Environmental considerations are, predominantly, those on which I will make up my mind about shale gas.

The UK gas/oil business is different from that in the USA. Land ownership/rights, licensing of gas/oil resources, use of water — all of these are so different from the USA. The USA experience can only inform us about technology, nuts and bolts.

@21.
"Consumers are traders."
Not in the world of gas consumption.
You are a domestic consumer who has an account with a company that bills you. As a customer, you do not get to influence the wholesale price of gas. You can shop around and see which company has the best tariffs for your needs but that doesn’t make you a trader.

There are ‘not-for-profit’ companies and worker/customer cooperatives but you will not find them in the UK energy sector.

fracking is yet one more cameron-corrupt–POLITICAL TERRORIST–COALITION -LIE,WE EVEN TODAY,HAVE VERY HIGH PROFILE,INDUTRIALISTS,BANKERS ,AND BUSINESS,TELLING THE TRUTH,THAT IT WILL END-UP COSTING FAR MORE THAN ANY FUEL EVER IN HISTORY,AND THAT IT IS SO DANGEROUS TO THE AREAS BEING DRILLED,IT IS SCARY,NOW IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE,AMONG ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE BRITISH ISLES,THAT CAMERON–CLEGG,AND–THE –CORRUPT–POLITICAL–TERRORIST COALITION,ARE EXPERT LIARS,BUT NOW THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT RED–HANDED–AND–WITH–THERE–FINGERS–IN–THE–TILL,,THEY ARE ACTUALLY DIRECTLY–INVOLVED-WITH THE COMPANIES .DOING THE DRILLING, WHICH BRINGS US TO ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL POINT,THAT IS THE POLICING–OF PROTESTS,,WHICH IN LAW,CANNOT BE FUNDED,FROM TAX PAYERS MONEY,AS THERE AS BEEN NO LEGAL, CONSULTATION,WITH THE PEOPLE, NO MANDATE,FROM OR BY THE PEOPLE,LEGAL CROWN LAW, STATES,THE GOVERNMENT OF OFFICE CANNOT,USE PUBLIC FUNDS TO POLICE PRIVATE PROJECTS,,THAT IS A VERY ,VERY SERIOUS CRIMINAL ISSUE,WE ALL KNOW THAT THE MEDIA ,ARE ALSO INVOLVED,WITH THESE DRLLING COMPANIES,AS FINANCIAL PARTNERS/BACKERS,SO REPORTING,OF THE TRUE FACTS WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE,WHICH ,THEN BRINGS ME TO THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS OFFICE,THEY WILL BE INFORMED,BUT AGAIN,AS I HAVE STATED PREVIOUSLY,,THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS,RECENTLY,STATED.IT IS O.K. FOR POLITICANS,TO INDULGE IN BRIBERY,AS FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,THAT OFFICE HAS PROVED OVER MANY,MANY -YEARS,TO BE POLITICALLY BIASED,IN FAVOUR–OF RIGHT WING–POLITICAL TERRORISTS,WHICH LEAVES THE LAST RESORT,A DIRECT APPEAL TO HER GRACIOUS-MAJESTY-THE QUEEN,OUR SOVEREIGN,TO INTERVENE-AND HAVE DAVID CAMERON,NICK CLEGG,THE CHIEF-OF POLICE-THE-DIRECTOR-OF-PUBLIC-PROSECUTIONS,ALL REMOVED FROM OFFICE WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT,FOR THE SAKE OF HONOUR,AND CLEARING OF POLITICAL-TERRORIST CORRUPTION,.stephen.a.anderson.snr,

This Tom Brown chap is conflating a couple of issues to attack shale gas.

Firstly, he suggests that Shale will be more expensive than Norweigen nat gas. This is by no means nevessarily true, not least because Norway’s nat gas fields are (like the UK’s offsore fields) starting to run down. In comparison UK onshore shale reserves are estimate to be very large.

Russian gas is indeed very cheap at the moment, but is not very secure given the Russian’s propensity to turn the pipelines off, as well as the risky areas those pipelines go through.

Either way, as long as shale gas can be extracted in a profitable fashion, extra supply will slowly bring market prices down whilst adding considerable sums to the exchequer.

Why this is a surprise I don’t know. The exmaple of the US in itself should point to the economic benefits of shale.

The environmental argument is seperate, though it must be said that clean burning gas seems to be a better alternative than wind farms which are extremely expensive yet require a gas fired power station running in the background in case the wind stops.

I wonder for how long the Shire Tories will support the Posh boys when all of a sudden they find that the Test and the Itchen have ceased to flow ? , ” when you’ve poisoned all the rivers and cut down the last tree you will find that money cannot be eaten ” .

Fracking isn’t the panacea it is made out to be. There are enormous problems with the economics of it, let alone the environmental problems.

Shale oil and gas wells have very steep decline rates of up to 69% within one year. That means literately thousands of new wells must be drilled every year, at enormous cost in order to offset the declines in production from existing wells let alone expand production, this has been called the “drilling treadmill”. These costs can only be sustained at high gas prices. Thus shale cannot produce low cost gas or oil, because it is inherently expensive to produce.

@28. Charlieman
If only we had not-for-profit companies in the energy sector that are involved with the process of extraction and wholesale trading and a government that cares about energy conservation.
Having a tariff and billing company for domestic customers is a something anyway.
As a sceptic of political intentions, I reckon that any drilling company that gets shale gas to the surface at reasonable cost will have the entire field of reserves used to generate electricity.

>Are the renewable white elephants the same as the nuclear white elephants?

Are we talking German nuclear white elephants here?

Apparently their coolant generates extraordinarily red herrings.

>@17.
>”Shale Gas will be a major way to prevent increases.”
>Not with profit seeking companies trading at the same price per unit irrespective of source. The only way that there would be a marked difference would be if the UK became a net exporter of gas and that is not going to happen.

Diversity of supply increases competition, which puts pressure on price.

You are warmly invited to join communities facing the threat of fracking, and residents of Balcombe, on a family friendly march to the Cuadrilla site. They will be carrying symbols of the sustainable future that they want to create in place of community threatening, climate changing, ecologically damaging fossil fuels.

“The UK (unlike the US, due to geography) is thoroughly linked into the Eurasian gas market. People buy and sell gas from many sources, and since it’s all interchangeable, it all trades for the same price (plus transport costs).

An increase in total supply from UK shale will decrease the price in this market a little. But the total expected from UK shale isn’t all that much, so this effect won’t be all that big. Those who project that global gas prices will fall due to shale coming online are assuming it’ll come online *throughout Europe and beyond* — whether the UK exploits it or not is not going to be a major factor.[1]

So, UK shale will be sold at the prevailing price. Why wouldn’t it be? Why would private companies, who’ve invested in setting up this infrastructure, sell it for less than the going rate? They won’t.”

It’s also near irrelevant.

Should we tell a farmer not to plant his field with wheat because wheat is traded on the world market and his field isn’t going to move the world price very much?

Maybe Aston Martin should be closed because 3,000 cars a year doesn’t do very much for the global car price?

Further, maybe we might want to look a little more into that idea that the UK is tightly linked in to the entire EU gas market. Well, no, not really, it isn’t. Pipeline capacity is much lower than demand. That’s why the recent report from Poryry indicates that we might be getting 60% of our gas from LNG. A significantly more expensive process than feeding domestically produced gas into the extant pipeline network.

Finally, do note what is really being said. UK shale will mean that, if those gas markets really are wholly entwined, that ALL European gas prices will decline by that 4% or so. 500 million people save 4% of their energy bills. That’s worth striving for isn’t it?

Just to run that calculation very quickly: 500 million people is, umm, 150 million households or so. Current dual feed (and the gas price affects the ‘leccie one) are what, £1,200? 4% of that is, umm, £50? So, 150 million households save £50 a year: £7.5 billion?

Note that if the EU gas markets are closely entwined then it is gas prices for all EU that fall, meaning that the 500 million benefit. If they’re not closely integrated then of course the price drop in the UK will be much larger. Either way, there’s still a substantial benefit to consumers.

You are warmly invited to join communities facing the threat of fracking, and residents of Balcombe, on a family friendly march to the Cuadrilla site.

Balcombe have (or at any rate had) the least friendly cricket team in Sussex, as well as a ridiculous tree/hedge rule. Fuck’em.

That’s why the recent report from Poryry indicates that we might be getting 60% of our gas from LNG. A significantly more expensive process than feeding domestically produced gas into the extant pipeline network.

And one that relies on large and expensive LNG carriers, financed by… Nord LB.

@39.
"That’s why the recent report from Poryry indicates that we might be getting 60% of our gas from LNG."

‘Shale gas won’t lead to a collapse in UK gas prices’ says Pöyry.
Published on 6 Aug 2013
Richard Sarsfield-Hall, Senior Principal at Pöyry Management Consulting, told Proactiveinvestors that shale gas development in the UK won’t lead to a collapse in gas prices. This is because, unlike America, which has become nearly self-sufficient for gas, Britain is connected to the worldwide gas market via liquefied natural gas and via pipelines to Europe and Russia, and those prices will be not be directly affected in the same way, he argued. Shale gas would, at the most, cover 25% of what is needed in the UK, he stressed.
Link to interview Richard Sarsfield-Hall, Senior Principal at Pöyry Management Consulting:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EakcC8ngR4&list=UU6zHYEnBuH4DYxbPLsbIaVw

The 25% of total gas demand is highly optimistic and extremely shortlived.

[profits] will accrue entirely to equity and debt investors … and to the exchequer through corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax

my emphasis. This is a left-wing website right? The government, being agents of we the people, gathering taxes and doing good things (investment, redistribution, health, education etc.*) So that’s profits accruing entirely to investors and us, the people, then.

* or, if the Tories are still in power when the gas tax revenue starts to flow, possibly funding tax cuts for the wealthy whilst holding spending constant.

@43.
In my comment #37, I was not writing about tax and fuel duty. Fossil fuel is not like the majority of consumables because the supply is finite and trying to draw parallels with car production is not valid.
Your wheat farmer depends on numerous factors being in his favour but I don’t see how they compare with gas extraction of any type because gas fields cannot be re-sown. If the farmer has a bad year, the arable land is still there and there is always next year. With bad fracking and an exhausted fracking site there is no next year, just a horrible mess that may, or may not, be cleared up at goodness knows what price.

Chris Kennedy: “emits up to 60 percent fewer carbon-dioxide emissions than coal when used for power generation”

No. It consists pretty much entirely of extra carbon dioxide emissions, because if we had left it in the ground it would produce zero carbon dioxide emissions.

The carbon efficiency in comparison with coal is not really that important, because in the main it won’t replace coal – it will supplement coal. It seems highly unlikely to me that it’ll actually stop coal being mined; the coal will just be used for something else.

For example, some other country could build coal power stations to take advantage of the cheap surplus coal.

As our economic system stands, if we find a lucrative fuel resource – any lucrative resource – we cheer wildly, dig it up and sell it, immediately and without question. You can’t prevent climate change without some way of changing that dynamic.

I imagine the prospect of the SNP achieving their wish for independence with North Sea Oil revenues, though unlikely, has a role in this. Fracking is the English hydrocarbon resource, with English revenues.

The big question here in Sussex, where we are already regularly facing water shortages, is where the water needed for fracking will come from? As far as I can see this is the issue most likely to stop the fracking project dead.

@47
The water issue is the main reason fracking is so much more attractive in Lancashire and the North East. Leave aside the relative property values and the Nimby gap and you have the basic problem that there isnt enough water in the South East to do any serious fracking AND sustain the growing population.

A British Geological Survey estimate indicates that 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas are held in the Bowland shale basin, the upper estimate is 2,281 tcf.
The Bowland shale basin is probably the biggest shale basin in the world, and is nice and fat making extraction easier than in most locals.

DocMartyn
8 hrs, 34 mins ago
“A British Geological Survey estimate indicates that 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas are held in the Bowland shale basin, the upper estimate is 2,281 tcf.
The Bowland shale basin is probably the biggest shale basin in the world, and is nice and fat making extraction easier than in most locals.

A British Geological Survey estimate indicates that 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas are held in the Bowland shale basin, the upper estimate is 2,281 tcf.
The Bowland shale basin is probably the biggest shale basin in the world, and is nice and fat making extraction easier than in most locals.

Unfortunately, very little of that is ever likely to be extracted, experience in the US suggests that shale plays have a very low recovery rate compared with conventional gas field, typically somewhere between 5-10%. So if that is a guide to what we can expect, you can cut that estimate by about 90-95%.

it’s a weird argument. if UK shale gas would represent a small increase in supply then use it will have a small effect on prices, but in the case it’s a small matter, there won’t be much fracking done, and the profits etc. accruing to investors will be small etc. and the whole issue becomes less important. Conversely if UK shale gas is going to be a big deal, with lots of fracking done in lots of place for long durations of time, then it will represent a large increase in supply with a larger effect on prices. The more UK shale gas matters, the less his argument makes sense.

Acccording to Terje Riis-Johansen, Norwegian minister of Petroleum and Energy 2008-2011, due to increased demand mainly from China, the current glut of natural gas will only last another 10 years, hence it is wise for Britain and other countries to seek alternatives. Regarding fracking however, in spite of claims to the contrary, it’s safety is unproven and an increasing number of towns in the USA have banned operations within their jurisdiction. To go ahead in an area such as Balcome therefore, within close proximity to a huge reservoir (Ardingly) supplying drinking water and a 37 arch railway viaduct would be to gamble with possible loss of lives. Also, can we afford to divert billions of tons of water to release fuel when in a country that currently grows only about a third of its food requirements, and when water shortages for farming are already predicted?

If I were to read this and accept it as undeniable fact then the act of ‘fracking’ cannot be justified. Research certainly shows the risks to our environment and the damage to the landscape, but it also highlights the financial benefits too. My question to whoever wishes to listen or indeed comment is this:

Would investing in renewable and sustainable energy resources be more or less profitable? And based on the answer to this question, Is that the driving reason for attempting to pump gas out of shale?

some of these people, especially STEPHEN ANDERSON, are really barking. Greens have terrified us long enough. Global warming has n’t happened, so now it’s ‘climate change’. We are destroying our industry with stupid emission targets imposed by idiot politicians frightened by a tiny, vociferous band of howling activists with their fraudulent data. Many have a financial or academic interest in useless windfarms, which we now learn are going to have to be backed up by thousands of diesel generators for when the wind don’t blow, not to mention the ‘carbon’ emitted in their erection! The only realistic emission-free power is nuclear, against which the greens have bullied successive governments, until now when there is a serious prospect of the lights going out; and from now will take a decade to get into operation. I don’t believe any of the anti-fracking scare stories, which are being put about by the usual mob of hysterical earth-huggers, who would prefer us all back in the stone age. I bet they all have mobile phones and ipads, though. Push on with fracking, and ignore the doomsayers. It will be good for the UK.

Or doesn’t mention that money earned from tax from the drilling companies will offset current tax paid by ‘we the people’. Mind you I would have no faith in the current political class to reduce taxes, rather than accrue further tax income to waist on yet more pathetic liberal agenda shoite!

“some of these people, especially STEPHEN ANDERSON, are really barking. Greens have terrified us long enough. Global warming has n’t happened, so now it’s ‘climate change’. We are destroying our industry with stupid emission targets imposed by idiot politicians frightened by a tiny, vociferous band of howling activists with their fraudulent data. Many have a financial or academic interest in useless windfarms, which we now learn are going to have to be backed up by thousands of diesel generators for when the wind don’t blow, not to mention the ‘carbon’ emitted in their erection! The only realistic emission-free power is nuclear, against which the greens have bullied successive governments, until now when there is a serious prospect of the lights going out; and from now will take a decade to get into operation. I don’t believe any of the anti-fracking scare stories, which are being put about by the usual mob of hysterical earth-huggers, who would prefer us all back in the stone age. I bet they all have mobile phones and ipads, though. Push on with fracking, and ignore the doomsayers. It will be good for the UK.”

Cobblers.

Aside from points made by other posters here about fracking our future away, here are my points…

A multi trillion dollar polluting industry is peddling the memes you parrot solely to preserve their own subsidised profits. Do you trust them instead?

It was was the tame politicians in the back pocket of of the fossil fuel industry that pushed for changing the wording from global warming to climate change in the first place.

Have you looked at what is happening in the real world, there are some really informative presentations of actual data about what is happening worldwide courtesy of such organisations like NASA about how much the arctic (and Antarctic) are melting etc. YouTube it…

The endless ad hominem smears from that industry have been repeatedly debunked, it is only ignorance that keeps such zombie myths going.

Renewables, by the very nature that they are ultimately various forms of solar power, are actually vast in comparison to the decomposed and fossilised corpses of yesteryear we are currently burning. Have you ever done a comparison between the total energy hitting the planet and fossil fuels, even 0.01% intercepted and used by us will provide us with all the energy we’d ever need.

Having said that, Stephen Anderson does go too far with his own statements. It is not necessary as reality is cause for concern anyway.

Are you prepared to bet not just your wallet, but your children on my statements been false?

Oh and by the way, if you prefer to trust fossil fuel corpies, their pet politicians and lackey lawyers over scientists who spend decades investigating the real world, doesn’t that make you ideologically hogtied and wilfully ignorant?

I see you’ve all had your comments, but quite frankly i couldn’t give a s@@t what ANY of you think. UNLESS you live close to an extraction site i don’t think anyone has the right to comment about this particular situation and can someone please tell me, when did we start to believe ANYTHING a politician tells us??!?!!!?!?!

Not sure what you are trying to say, as my interest in your obvious rant faded pretty quickly. Few people like to listen to a shouty man, let alone read one. Try reading it yourself, after a few days to let your temper settle, then re-write it with your caps-lock off.

So let me get this straight; shale gas cannot be economical because… well, some banker with no known credentials in mining or drilling does not think it will be. Any gas will be prohibitively expensive, as compared with, say, wind – which today is more than twice the cost of the gas for which we are prepared to pay a price that is three times as high as the cost of gas in the USA being extracted from, erm, shale.

Hmmm, something does not seem to be adding up, here.

Odd that there are companies who think that they can extract the gas and sell it on at prices that would be attractive to us, and that they are doing that solely at their own risk – if their plans do not pan out, they will fold, at little cost to anyone else. As for the “renewables” (not too sure what that means, as the equipment and processes are far from renewable), well, they are being subsidized at high cost to the tax-payer (i.e. you and me), but still sold at high cost to the consumer (i.e. you and me), with little prospect of these costs being reduced. This is creating what is known as “Fuel Poverty”, and is causing more deaths per year in this country than heat stroke is causing in the rest of the world; ah, well, that is the penalty of [no] progress (i.e. regression).

There does seem to be a great deal of ignorance about hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. fracking); have a listen to “Double Take” on BBC 5 Live on i-player; from about 43m 25secs, there is an interview with an American farmer who has been forced to live with the process for some time now, and expects to have to put up with it for 35 to 70 years. He has done the research, and does explain it very well, without excessive hype.

By the way, fracking has been practiced in this country for many decades; it’s just that nobody seemed bothered – Wytch Farm, Dorset, is probably the biggest site at the moment. Perhaps it is that this “new” source of LNG – well, NG, as it has not been cooled to a liquid – is posing a threat to sources of (imported) LNG that several companies have invested huge sums of money in.

And so we go for unregulated economic growth, bringing with it all of the consequences that that entails:
Destruction of our countryside.

Which wind farms do not do… oh, no, no, no…

Fowling of our water supplies.

Surely a good thing – the more ducks, the better!

Loss of prime agricultural land.

Erm, how, exactly? Each shale gas site will occupy the area of a football field, and be no closer than 2 miles apart – unlike your lovely wind turbines, requiring the clearance of 4 acres, and can be packed nice a close.

Wake up and smell the coffee guys put your money into renewables, give not just your children but everyone’s children a chance!

But ignore those families in China living on the sides of those lakes poisoned by the extraction of the rare earth metals required for you oh-so-environmentally-friendly, bird-chopping, peat destroying, habitat eradicating wind turbines.

And so we go for unregulated economic growth, bringing with it all of the consequences that that entails:
Destruction of our countryside.

Which wind farms do not do… oh, no, no, no…

Fowling of our water supplies.

Surely a good thing – the more ducks, the better!

Loss of prime agricultural land.

Erm, how, exactly? Each shale gas site will occupy the area of a football field, and be no closer than 2 miles apart – unlike your lovely wind turbines, requiring the clearance of 4 acres, and can be packed nice a close.

Wake up and smell the coffee guys put your money into renewables, give not just your children but everyone’s children a chance!

But ignore those families in China living on the sides of those lakes poisoned by the extraction of the rare earth metals required for you oh-so-environmentally-friendly, bird-chopping, peat destroying, habitat eradicating wind turbines.

……………….

Aww gee thanks Rodent,

When I posted it my post was under moderation, I didn’t thi I it would be published.
You’ve highlighted it nicely but you forgot the attached link:

The levels of ignorance about fracking on this site are truly staggering (as is the political leanings of many, too).

Cherub (47):

… where we are already regularly facing water shortages, is where the water needed for fracking will come from?

StellaH (54):

…can we afford to divert billions of tons of water to release fuel…

A decade of fracking uses as much water as Thames Water is losing through leakages in one hour. Does that answer your question?

Paul peter Smith (48):

…the main reason fracking is so much more attractive in Lancashire and the North East.

Actually, it is more likely that it is because that is where the most gas shale is! (There is a clue in the name: Bowland Shale.)

Balbuzard Pecheur (57):

Everyone knows fracking is a bad idea. Let’s stop it now before the earthquakes start and Sussex disappears into a sink hole.

Erm, no. Fracking has been going on for a lot longer than you realise, and there have been no adverse effects yet recorded (as a point of irony, it is presently underway under the most expensive real estate in England, in Poole – yay! Go, sinkholes!).

Methinks that many of the protestors are not concerned with the future but are more alarmed by the prospect of people making money out of it. Before you clamour for “zero carbon” look back to the time when we were close to that point (but never actually there, as no life can ever be called “zero carbon”), in the middle ages and before. Should you want to live that way, nobody is stopping you; however, this does not give you any right to tell everyone else how they should live.

Touch your nose. Can’t see your hand. Now take the hand away and see the big picture. Easy. 350 . org is a group that is explaining to the world that when we reach 350 in carbon pollution, that is the point of no return. It has been reported that we are at 400 and getting worse. The debate is over . World scientists have told us that everything in our atmosphere will change. Yet we procrastinate and keep our heads in the sand with an anal exposure. QUIT ARGUEING and do something to correct this situation.

No. 4% of the present “disastrous” increase in CO2 is man-made. As for 350 being so tragic (Bob Schmetzer – 72); well, it’s odd that it is considered that we are in a “CO2 drought” that plant life has been suffering for centuries (see the link I posted in 64 – though I have little doubt that no-one will bother, as few on sites like this wish to be enlightened, just ridicule others who do not think like they do). Wake up and smell the roses: CO2 is not the big bad monster many would have you believe – and please note that, while CO2 HAS been rising, global temperatures HAVE NOT. Consider that, and then consider the possibility that the two may actually not actually be connected (I still remain doubtful that many of you will be able to connect those two quite unremarkable facts).

Global warming may be real, but, if so, is merely part of a complex cycle of which we have little understanding – perhaps primarily because we are so fixated on it being the fault of CO2 – or even worse, man-made CO2!

You seriously can’t smell the sulphurous stench emanating from it? Disappointed, yet entirely predictable. Try coming back with science. But then, science is the last thing you would look at, if you cite corrupt tinfoil hatted über-krischun drivel (I cannot see such a site as anything other than a dumbed down rightwing corruption of Christianity, hence spelling Christian as krischun)

Oh, dear, Dissident. Sorry, I offered a site that had evidence and conclusions entirely contrary to your own. That is one of the problems with science – very often, there can be two completely opposite points of view based upon the same information. That some of the views may come from those with a religious bent does not make them wrong (though, in your case, that it is a Christian site obviously makes it utterly reprehensible – how scientific). There is one theory: CO2 is causing global temperatures to rise (sometimes adjusted to “man-made CO2 is causing global temperatures to rise”, as if man-made CO2 is different from natural CO2). There are two simple facts: CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising; global temperatures are not. To use the logic of one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, Richard Feynman, if the facts do not match the theory, then the theory is wrong.

I am sure that Richard Feynman and his ilk – i.e. TRUE scientists – would also agree that it is important to try and look at as many interpretations of the evidence as possible – however, this might not guarantee that your own conclusion will be any less wrong, which is why it is important to keep an open mind. Yours is so obviously tightly shut, don’t bother replying.

Except AGW/ACC is proving to be politically extraordinarily convenient – look to all those politicians who cleave to it for personal gain (Bliar, Brown, Camoron, Millipede, O’bummer, Gillard… well, the list is almost as long as there are politicians). There is nothing whatsoever that is politically “inconvenient” about AGW/ACC.

Remember, there was a “consensus” of scientists in opposition to Einstein, desperate to prove him wrong. His response was simple: “It only takes one fact to prove me wrong.” For AGW/ACC, the possibility of falsifiability has been totally removed – whatever happens, it is just more “proof”: hurricanes – proof! Lack of hurricanes – proof! Drought – proof! Floods – proof! Heat wave – proof! Cold snap – proof! Reduced (summertime) Arctic ice – proof! Early expansion of Arctic ice (trapping many seeking the Northwest Passage this year)… well, guess what? Proof!

The fact is that global warming / climate change is not following the increasing of CO2 levels, yet, somehow, that is more proof of the theory. If you think that is sound science, then your ideas of science and mine differ somewhat.

Radical; pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was c270-280ppm. It stayed pretty constant, showing that the carbon cycle was pretty stable – sinks matched sources. It is now 400ppm. We have burnt enough fossil carbon to have increased atmospheric CO2 to c500ppm+; but the natural sinks have been able to absorb roughly half, halving the increase.

The 4% figure you refer to is the proportion of (current) annual anthropogenic CO2 to annual gross CO2 emissions; it is that extra CO2 which has caused the entirety of the increase.

Think of a (big) bath… The taps are delivering 100 litres a minute. The plug is out, and 100 litres a minute is draining out of the bath. The water volume in the bath remains constant, at 280 litres.

Turn the taps up a little, to 104 litres a minute; the water level in the bath increases, and the increased pressure causes an increase in outflow of say 2 litres an hour. After an hour, the volume of water in the bath has increased by 120 litres, and turning the taps up has been responsible for the entirety of the increase.

Oh, and I read Paul Driessen’s Gish Gallop. No CO2 drought; 280ppm is at the top end of CO2 concentrations in the last 420k years (180-280ppm is the range).

while CO2 HAS been rising, global temperatures HAVE NOT

Could you explain that to the Arctic sea-ice – and the thermometers?

Consider that, and then consider the possibility that the two may actually not actually be connected

So what both stops the heat held in the atmosphere by atmospheric CO2 warming the atmosphere, and also keeps the Earth’s surface temperature liveable?

“I am sure that Richard Feynman and his ilk – i.e. TRUE scientists – would also agree that it is important to try and look at as many interpretations of the evidence as possible – however, this might not guarantee that your own conclusion will be any less wrong, which is why it is important to keep an open mind. Yours is so obviously tightly shut, don’t bother replying.”

As Robin Levett told you, it’s such a pity that the arctic sea ice didn’t get the memo. How inconvenient that here in the real world, not the Gish galloping fantasy island generated by the fossil fuel industry, that AGW is real, has been caused by us and is already starting to devastate large areas of what’s left of the earths natural biomes. Incidentally, it is also affecting crop yields, just in case you are so feckless as to think that the earths natural biomes don’t matter! How much of Texas, Syria, China, etc, is becoming uninhabitable now? One of those places has already been pushed into conflict as a result of a collapse of crop yields.

Do you understand Richard Feynman’s most quote?

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”

There a various clues as to what is happening, and what would be should there have been no warming:

Over the past two centuries, our planet finally began to emerge from the Little Ice Age that had cooled the Earth and driven Viking settlers out of Greenland.

Without the warming, we would still be in the Little Ice Age (though you might think that a good thing, with much of Europe covered in snow for the majority of the year. Ice fairs on the Thames, mass starvation of peasant, and all such fun…). The warming is more likely to be part of the various cycles this planet goes through over the eons, and a lot of the warming actually causes an increase in atmospheric CO2:

Warming oceans slowly released some of the carbon dioxide stored in their waters.

Of course, for you, the warming can only be human-induced, therefore is wrong, wrong!
What are the benefits of increased CO2? Oddly enough, they are manifest:

The more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the more it is absorbed by plants of every description –- and the faster and better they grow, even under adverse conditions like limited water, extremely hot air temperatures, or infestations of insects, weeds and other pests.

Good, surely?

Lentils and other legumes grown in hothouses with 700 ppm CO2 improved their total biomass by 91%, their edible parts yield by 150 % and their fodder yield by 67%, compared to similar crops grown at 370 ppm carbon dioxide

Can you complain about that? (Rhetorical question, really.)

Rice grown at 600 ppm CO2 increased its grain yield by 28%…

As rice is a staple of most people’s diets, that cannot be bad.

…carbon dioxide lowered plant sensitivity to severe drought and improved their survival rates by almost 50%. Swiss researchers concluded that, because of rising carbon dioxide levels, “alpine plant life is proliferating, biodiversity is on the rise, and the mountain world appears more productive and inviting than ever.”

So, not only is the food output increasing, the plants’ resistance to adversity is improved, too. CO2 is essential to almost all life on this planet; in the past, it has been ten times higher than it is now, and life thrived; why do you want to reduce it (as if you – or the entire human race – could!)?

280ppm is at the top end of CO2 concentrations in the last 420k years (180-280ppm is the range).

Not sure where you get those figures from, though 280 ppm was the concentration of CO2 during the medieval warming period, with temperatures about 1°C higher than now. How do you reconcile that with your conviction that it is all the fault of human’s?

Could you explain that to the Arctic sea-ice – and the thermometers?

You mean the sea ice that is trapping many foolhardy “sailors” seeking the Northwest Passage by forming 2 weeks early? And the thermometers that are resolutely not rising (see IPCC, GISS, UKMO, etc.) for the past 15years or so?

So what both stops the heat held in the atmosphere by atmospheric CO2 warming the atmosphere…

One of the major flaws with the link you posted is that it is an Australian site (and a TV station to boot – like the BBC (which brooks no argument against the AGW meme), this may also have been seriously indoctrinated by the “consensus” line); the validity of climate science from Australia has been seriously compromised, so the article has to be looked at with some suspicion (as, of course, should any other article). And you accuse me of cherry-picking! Odd, too, how you do not seem to have bothered reading the comments – most are at odds with the article, as are scientists in the USA, China and India, who say that many crops become MORE nutritious in high CO2 atmospheres (admittedly, with extra fertilizers as well, but that is logical).

Actually, Dissident (80), the fossil fuel industries that you so obviously loathe are investing large sums of money in the climate change industry; to think that they would not try to get a finger in that subsidy-rich pie has to be a remarkable demonstration of naivety.

… AGW is real, has been caused by us …

And you have irrefutable proof of this? Quick! Publish and save the world! Oh. Dog ate it, did it?

…and is already starting to devastate large areas of what’s left of the earths [sic] natural biomes…

Over the past two centuries, our planet finally began to emerge from the Little Ice Age that had cooled the Earth and driven Viking settlers out of Greenland.

Without the warming, we would still be in the Little Ice Age (though you might think that a good thing, with much of Europe covered in snow for the majority of the year. Ice fairs on the Thames, mass starvation of peasant, and all such fun…). The warming is more likely to be part of the various cycles this planet goes through over the eons, and a lot of the warming actually causes an increase in atmospheric CO2:

The Little Ice Age was not worldwide; it was a Northern Hemisphere, particularly a Northern European, phenomenon, although there was some associated cooling of the rest of the globe. Even in the Northern Hemisphere, the LIA happened at different times in different places. We were coldest in the 160 years from late 15th to early 17th; whereas for most of the period the USA had temperatures comparable to the 20th century, with cold snaps of a couple of decades notably around 1700.

You may not have noticed, but there’s often snow on the ground in Europe – it happens often between Novmber and March/April, and we even have a word for the season in which it happens – winter. Even in the depths of the LIA, wine grapes were grown north of London; Pepys’s diary has accounts of visting two vineyards, one at Greenwich and one at Hatfield House. That would have been during the coldest period of the LIA; as would the time he drank wine made from vines planted at Walthamstow (17 July 1667).

Ice fairs are a much overemphasised phenomenon. Firstly, the Thames until the mid-19th century was a much wider, shallower, slower-flowing river, with weirs under the old London Bridge that created what was virtually a lake above it. It’s no coincidence that there were no more ice fairs after it was replaced, even though the local climate remained cold. Secondly, they were not annual affairs; in fact the records show only 24 winters when the Thames froze over at London between 1400 and 1850. Outside the period 1565 to 1716 (during which it froze 14 times), it froze less than once a generation. Thirdly, the freezes were not long-term. The longest was two months; many were taken down almost as soon as they were put up, because the ice melted.

The “warming”, was actually a cessation of the cooling that caused the LIA. Current best information on the causes is:

Of those:
Solar activity hasn’t changed since 1950. If anything, there has been a net negative forcing from volcanism albeit less strong than during the LIA. We have indeed been cutting down trees like there’s no tomorrow since the industrial era began, but not on the scale necessary to account for warming since the start of the industrial era.

Warming oceans slowly released some of the carbon dioxide stored in their waters.

Of course, for you, the warming can only be human-induced, therefore is wrong, wrong!

It is true that increased temperatures drive CO2 out of solution in the ocean; strangely, I don’t find that a comforting thought.

But what you are missing is that we know that we have produced enough CO2 from buring fossil fuels to have increased CO2 levels in the atmopshere by far more than the 120ppm. We know that from oil/coal/gas production figures. We can also tell how much fossil-fuel-produced CO2 remains in the atmosphere, from the isotopic ratios.

280ppm is at the top end of CO2 concentrations in the last 420k years (180-280ppm is the range).

Not sure where you get those figures from

The figures are in the scientific literature, from study of ice cores.

though 280 ppm was the concentration of CO2 during the medieval warming period, with temperatures about 1°C higher than now.

Read up on the difference in response to CO2 enrichment between C3 and C4 crops. Headline – to a first approximation, CO2 enrichment makes no difference to C4 crops; C4 crops include maize, sugar cane, millett, sorghum and brassicas.

Why, thank you. I had never thought of looking at that site before… It is interesting, and I have visited it frequently; however, I became a little disenchanted with any site that says (and I paraphrase): “the temperatures may be on a plateau, but the heat is still rising.” Hmmm, sounds like a good scientific argument: “The facts may be this, but they are really concealing the truth.” If the temperatures are not rising, how can the heat be increasing? Oh, by miraculously not bothering to heat the atmosphere any more, but to concentrate on the oceans. Perhaps it takes it in turn – so many years (or decades) heating the atmosphere; so many heating the oceans. Oh, horrors! – well, you have been warned! As for sea-levels, one good source is those who are actually studying the sea levels, such as Nils-Axel Morner, who states that, while sea levels do change, they are not really increasing significantly around the world, let alone at anything like the rates claimed.

I do not claim to know what is the cause of global warming / climate change / call it what you will, but accept that it has occurred throughout history – always without any interference from the human race. Why is it so drastically different this time? Occam’s Razor leads one to the conclusion that it is not, and for those so convinced that there can be no doubt consider this: Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.—Voltaire

Perhaps, while you’re at it, you could learn a little about the ENSO; the headline is that the El Nino phase is characterised by warm surface water in the Pacific – specifically off South/Central America, and La Nina by cooler surface water. What do you think might happen to global air temperatures if a large area of warm sea surface water is replaced by cooler water?

There is a wealth of information out there for you to draw your own conclusions, not least about the subject of this discussion – hydraulic fracturing has been in operation in this country (UK) for over 50 years, with no ill-effects recorded; it has been used for about a century around the world, again, with no ill-effects noted. The USA alone has about 500,000 fracking sites, with no associated deaths, earthquakes or sinkholes; a record that manual fracking (a.k.a. mining – which is still widely accepted) can only envy. Fracking also has no devastating assaults on bird and bat populations, which the “green” energy of wind-farms fails on.

The world’s true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president), not at the IPCC. Our research is what the climate lobby might call an ‘inconvenient truth’: it shows that sea levels have been oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries. This is not due to melting glaciers: sea levels are affected by a great many factors, such as the speed at which the earth rotates. They rose in the order of 10 to 11cm between 1850 and 1940, stopped rising or maybe even fell a little until 1970, and have remained roughly flat ever since.

There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and, indirectly, from increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes in many physical and biological systems

Dr Morner was, quite some time ago, president of one of INQUA’s commissions, indeed, the commission on sea-level changes. That commission no longer exists, as such, but is now part of our Commission on Coastal and Marine Processes. Dr Morner’s views concerning sea-level change are his own and are not endorsed by the current Executive Committee of INQUA, nor have previous INQUA Executive Committees endorsed Dr Morner’s views. On several occasions INQUA has requested of Dr Morner that he not inadvertently represent his views on sea-level change as if they have some connection with INQUA.

Shall I answer it for red mouse? Cooler water (much cooler as it ultimately comes from the southern ocean) would act as an even more effective heat sink than warm equatorial water. It will absorb from the hot tropical air a humongous amount of heat energy, and absorb lots of solar energy (that’s light from the sun red mouse) yet because of the high specific heat capacity of water, still not warm up by much. That is bog standard GCSE level physics, but even then red mouse would wilfully let it waft over his/her/its head…

The reason for the ENSO La Niña conditions is the tropical pacific trade winds blowing extra strong, pushing said water to the western pacific region of course. Hence more water from the southern ocean flooding in to replace it.

Okay, Dissident (93). So why has this only recently decided to kick in; surely it must be an ongoing process – as the atmosphere temperatures rise, so must the sea’s, but it seems as though the two are taking turns, which strikes me as somewhat absurd. Even more confusing is that it is claimed that this “lost” heat has migrated to the deep oceans. Now, when I was at school, we were taught that heat rises, be it in a liquid or in air; yet, somehow, it is (perhaps magically?) avoiding that paradox, and whizzing down to raise the deep water temperatures from 3°C to 3.001°C. Amazing! And if this was to rise to the surface, we would bake! Again, this conflicts with my early learning, where cold water cools down whatever it is in contact with. Oh well, we live and learn.

To continue with the hypothesis being expounded by Mann’s best friends, the heat being sequestered in the deep oceans will rise at some unspecified time in the future, to kill us with its heat.

If that is the case, why could the present situation not be from heat sequestered similarly in the past, and only now revealing itself? Perhaps because that would conflict with all the other hypotheses presented to frighten us all?

By all accounts postulated by “those who know”, the reason why there is a hiatus in heating is for that very reason – the heat it being sequestered into the deep oceans instead of heating the atmosphere; I have yet to see any explanation as to why this was not obvious before the plateau we are presently on materialised (cherry-pick whatever year you want for that – personally, I always cherry-pick the last step up as the point where the landing starts, but you may have your own ideas). It just strikes me as desperately clutching at whatever straw is around to hold their heads above the rising tide of scepticism of their theories. Or perhaps I should say, “pseudo-theories,” as theories have to be falsifiable; the entire AGW scam remains utterly unfalsifiable –ergo, there is no theory.

My own understanding of ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) is that it is what it says on the tin – an “oscillation”: in other words, cyclic. The name itself indicates the most common time of its commencement – around Christmas-time, and results in high (occasional extremely high) rainfall on the eastern coast of the Pacific; however, there do not seem to be reports of above-normal precipitation, or increased hurricane activity (indeed, globally, tropical storms are at an all-time low – none at all so far this year in the Atlantic!). This “oscillation” that you are so desperately clinging to seems to have lasted over 10 years, now. Is the cycle stuck? Or is it that there are other, as yet unknown, factors involved, and the precious models are wrong? Again, application of Occam’s Razor has to lead to the latter conclusion.

Okay. So I am right – it has been cyclic. The longest La Nina (i.e. cooling) event lasted about 2 years (1954-56, 1973-75, 1999-2001); so, now you are telling me it no longer is, and that the 1999-2001 event has extended a further 12 years, to 2013? When will it end? What stopped it? Sorry, I have to invoke Occam’s Razor again – all the evidence suggests that the much-lauded global climate models (none of which agree with any other) are not correct, despite all the fiddling that is frantically going on. More work needs to be done; more science has to be applied. Anybody with the most remotely scientific mind would agree with that; science does not depend upon consensus, science depends upon facts. However, Einstein may have highlighted one problem: “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”

You’re not reading for comprehension, if you’re reading at all. 1998 was a massive El Nino year; the strongest on record. Since then the ENSO has flipped back and forth, but there has been nothing approaching 1998. Even so, 1998 is still only in a statistical tie for warmest year on record with two 21st century years. Take off your WUWT blinkers and think what that means.

I have read it. It would appear that the historical events have occurred every 7 – 9 years; now, it appears you are saying it is happening every year. Hmmm.

You’re right, Ceilog (102). Though I have to admit I am not posting to “win”, I am trying to enlighten myself; if I can help others do that, too, so much the better. However, perhaps I should give up; got a Razor handy?

Red Mouse, do you really want to understand? Or are you a shining example of Pope Urban’s chief inquisitor, as he was maliciously prosecuting Galileo for heresy, for daring to introduce the evidence he saw through his telescope, of mountains on the moon and entire worlds in orbit around Jupiter? Hansen et al are the Galileos to Exxon et al’s Pope Urban.

Please think about it, because your wilful dismissal of genuine science in favour of the most powerful industry on the planet is telling. It is the richest who define heresy, not scientists who eke out a living researching real world effects. Put that in your über-krischun pipe and smoke it, because for months now, you have been doing the bidding of the rich and powerful, like a papist inquisitor!

103.
If you are not posting to win, are you getting others to answer tricky questions in a climatology (or related earth science) course?
btw: ‘Mrs Beynon Says’ is more powerful than ‘Godwin’s Law’ so, expect visits from Druids.

Ah, the Galileo argument. Slightly flawed, as Galileo’s argument with the RC church was that the Earth moved around the Sun, not vice versa, and the Church did little more than argue (btw, Galileo was quite chummy with some of the higher echelons). The main flaw with Galileo’s argument was that he could not provide any proof.

Contrary to SkS, Galileo’s main contretemps was with scientists – his fracas involving what he saw through the telescope (not that he invented it – that was a Dutchman, but GG was quite happy to accept the accolade that it was his invention) was not with the Church, but with scientists. Does that ring any bells?

Oh. And the “Big Oil” meme. ‘nuff said. I shall leave you in the safe hands of Skeptical [sic] Science, and follow Ceilog’s advice.

which shows the ENSO index which continually varies; the reference to El Ninos and La Ninas is to periods when EN or LN conditions continue over a period of months (exact definitions vary). Obviously, a longer period where one condition predominates will have greater effects than if it flicks back and forth between the two states.

This is a table which higlights in blue and red the periods meeting NOAA’s definition (5 consecutive overlapping 3-month seasons of SST anomalies of +/-0.5C):

The 1997-8 El Nino lasted for somewhat over a year, and hit a peak of +2.4C. It was followed almost immediately by a c3 year La Nina, peaking at -1.7C. Since then we’ve had some much weaker El Ninos/La Ninas, but nothing approaching the 1997-8 El Nino.

I would be interested in the source for your claim that Galileo’s argument was principally with other scientists rather than the church. The idea that the earth went round the sun was not of course his,it was Copernicus’ posthumously published because he feared the repercussions from the church.Quite rightly too since one of his assistants was burned at the stake for making a similar claim within earshot of the papist authorities.

Galileo was a superstar of the day and the church was very courteous and in awe of him during his trial. He was allowed considerable latitude and arguably would certainly have remained free had he not pissed the trial judge off by thwarting a restraining order and then pretending not to have fully understood it.

Maybe the moral of the tale is don’t mess with the pigs or you’ll end up seeing stars!

If you read the article offered, hopefully, you will gain a greater understanding of the whole farrago. It is very interesting. Unless, of course, you want to dismiss it as yet another of my “lies”. (Evidence, Dis? None? How odd… Have you heard of libel?)

Red mouse, ‘libel’ is just one of the techniques billionaire bribe masters use to silence dissent, is that better than the papists of the dark ages, who burned people at the stake? Especially while they indulge in libel themselves. Repeatedly.

Enjoy the fraudulent morality of sulphurous über-krischun misinformation. Hug it close to your chest, as those GOPers run away with your family’s future to their tea party, and piss it down the urinal 😉

[…] it won’t even help bring energy prices down. It’s not just Greens saying that: everyone from senior executives at Norddeutsche Landesbank, analysts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance and even Cuadrilla’s own PR people say that the […]

[…] the economic benefits of a shale gas revolution in the UK – benefits which have been discredited time and timeagain. Increasingly, when observing the UK’s Dash for Gas, I am reminded of Plato’s […]

[…] Landesbank (hardly fluffy tree huggers!), highlighted in a recent letter to the Financial Times, there are many reasons to doubt both the economic arguments in favour of shale gas but also the security of supply argument. As he […]